The Waipawa Mail. Published Tuesdays, Thursdays & Saturdays. Saturday, October 7, 1893. THE LAND.

Waipawa Mail, Volume XVIII, Issue 2980, 7 October 1893, Page 2

The Waipawa Mail. Published Tuesdays, Thursdays & Saturdays. Saturday, October 7, 1893. THE LAND.

Somebody once gave utterance to the proposition that 1 ‘ Consistency is the virtue of fools.” The saying has been quoted a great deal since, but by inconsistent people. Hence on a soriptural authority, their witness is not true, because they speak of themselves. They have reasoned out that if to be consistent is to be foolishly virtuous, or virtuously foolish, to be wise and to be inconsistent mean one and the same thing. We should prefer to state the matter in quite a different mode, and to hold that consistency is to action as truth is to diction. A man who tells a lie may not be acting inconsistently, because he may be a consistent liar, but a man who professes to believe one thing to be right, and who does another thing, is inconsistent. Incidentally he is also either a rogue or a fool. With these considerations in view it will be instructive to note what has taken plaoe within the last two years with relation to land theories professed by the Government and to their action with regard to land alienation. Some time ago there was a Henry George “ boom.” It must be admitted that it bed a great deal to recommend it. It was not founded upon anything new, but was the result of an old theorv exceedingly well stated. The foundation of Georgeism is that the land belongs to the people; that the principal value of land is due to increase of population ; that therefore the value of land is largely “ unearned increment ’——Sir Robert Stout’s and fern George Grey’s old conjuring phrase—and that therefore the State should never part with the fee simple of the land, but should only let for a term with provisions as to revaluation, so as to secure the people, the rightful owners ot the soil, the added value due to their presence and to improvements carried out with their money. As a theory that is consistent. As mere dialectics the superstructure built upon it by Georgeites may be regarded as practically impregnable. One of its logical results in connection with its application to New Zealand politics was the perpetual lease, Mr Rollesjon’s enduring title to be remembered as a true Liberal and a statesman. Under the perpetual lease the lessee is secured as to tenure and to improvements made by himself, while the State has ensured to it the unearned increment by the revaluation clauses. If the theory that the State is the rightful owner of the land, and has power to tax it, or to lease it with a view to the

“ unearned increment,” be a good one, then the perpetual lease is a good and logical mode of dealing with the lands of the colony. But what we wish to point out is that, whether the theory be good or not, the Government have always held it to be so. In the House and on platforms members of the present Ministry have dwelt upon the asserted evils of freehold, the virtues of State leases, and the advantage of securing to the State by periodical valuations the values added to such leased land by agenoies other than the direct action of the lessee. So far so good. We have nothing whatever to say against the Government on that score. Indeed, as the perpetual lease was the gift of Mr Rolleston to the colony, as we profess to believe in that gentleman’s wisdom and patriotism, we should be as inconsistent as the average Liberal if we now abused that form of tenure because it is administered by the Government, although on the whole about the worst and most unreliable Government the colony has ever seen. But what we have a right to take objection to is this —that while the Government profess to believe it is wrong to alienate the land, and raise that belief as an exouse for discouraging cash purchases of land, they throw dust in the eyes of the people by means of an outrageous contrivance called the lease in perpetuity. Under this a man gets better than a freehold. That is, he gets all the rights of a freehold, and all its advantages, without any of its liabilities. In addition, the general public are taxed that he may be advanced what is practioally the purchase money of his land at a less rate of interest than the Government can borrow it for. Under this form of hoodwinking the public and robbing the taxpayer, a man goes through the form of leasing land. The-rental he has to pay is four per centum on the capital value. Thus, if the land is worth £IOOO he pays £4O a year. But although that is called rent it is really interest on puroliase money, for he is, speaking humanly ensured the possession of the land for ever without any liability increase in rent, the term of his so-called lease being 999 years. Thus what is worth to the State now £IOOO, may be worth £20,000 fif-y years hence, but the State will reap no advantage from the increase, because the rent cannot be raised. But if the value of the land should decrease, the holder can throw it up whenever he likes, so that as we said, he has all the advantages of a freehold without its disadvantages, and the purchase money is lent to him at less than the current rate of interest, the lender finding the security also. The process is a direct incentive to robbery of the State through the law. We have supposed a piece of land worth £IOOO. A man possessing that sum could get at least six per centum by lending it out. If he bought the supposed piece of land right out the annual charge upon it would be at least the £6O a year he might have got by lending his money, so that it will pay him to lend his money, take the land up on the fraudulent “ eternal lease” for £4O a year, and thus make £2O a year out of the taxpayer.